Campaigns Wikia:Impartial Category Policy/Resolutions/SSMcat
Following procedure Vote to remove Category:Civil rights" from the Same-sex marriage article ' - Requested by Lou franklin, 10:57, 4 September 2006 *Motion seconded by ШΔLÐSΣИ 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Arguments for proposing the vote I propose to remove the Category:Civil rights from the articles Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage/Con and Same-sex marriage/Proposal. #The placement of said categories may be interpreted as an implicit endorsement of adopting same-sex marriage as a civil right -- an opinion contested by many. #The categories should be a means of finding articles and should not be a source of controversy. The debate on whether same-sex marriage is a civil right should take place in the article. Far too much effort has been wasted on debating categories. #The placement of the Category:Civil rights on the article Same-sex marriage was decided because there is a group of people believe it is/should become a civil right. This could be applied for more generally rejected topics, such as child molestation (a sufficient argument for placing the Category:Civil rights on an article about child molestion would be the existence of a group of people who believe it is/should become a civil right). This is clearly unacceptable. The division between what we consider acceptable in the Category:Civil rights and what we don't is arbitrary; liberals include same-sex marriage, conservatives do not. ::I disagree. If there are arguments in the article that civil rights should be amended for any purpose, the article belongs in the civil rights category whether I agree with it or not. If it appears that those arguments were made in bad faith, that can be dealt with in other ways, but as long as the arguments are there, the category should be as well. There's nothing ''arbitrary about it. --whosawhatsis? 00:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC) #Finally, I believe this discussion has created a division between liberals and conservatives on this page, and I believe a gesture of good faith should be made to the conservative minority, showing our will to achieve a balanced site. My goal is to show that partisans can cooperate in harmony and create more than an informative site: a united community. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 00:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion '''Please post all comments on the previous arguments and general discussion in the talk page. Setting up the ballot Poll title: ICP Resolution SSMcat I'd like to use the new polling feature as a test of the feature itself, but I want to be sure that we have the choices recorded correctly. Please review the list and edit or comment on the choices. Once we all agree to the choices, we'll create a poll, set a time period (I'd say two weeks), and vote. We will also create a parallel section for people to record their votes openly. If the polling feature has problems that we can report, like recording different numbers than the parallel record, we'll report the problems and just go with the open vote. Chadlupkes 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC) The choices #Remove Category:Civil rights from ALL Same-sex marriage pages. #Remove Cat:Civil rights from SSM pages Background and Con, leaving it on Pro and Proposal #Remove Cat:Civil rights from all SSM pages EXCEPT Pro. #Do not remove Cat:Civil rights from any SSM page. Are those the choices as you see them? Do you think this will divide the vote too much? Should we simply vote based on Lou's motion, leaving the other options out? Comments welcome. Let's finalize this over the weekend and start the actual vote on Monday. Chadlupkes 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC) :I think the options are correct. It would be incomplete to leave one out and we don't need any more. We just have to try and get enough participiation for a good result (i.e. enough votes to count). I don't think this will work is only the people who have debated vote (Lou, Whosawhatsis?, Jfingers88, Chad, McLurker, etc). --ШΔLÐSΣИ 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC) :So this is going to be a vote-for-one, simple plurality vote? Yes, I think that would divide the vote too much. We could, however, vote using those options, but total the vote for each page individually. For example, "Do not remove from any page" would be a vote to keep it on each page, "remove from all except 'pro'" would be a vote to keep it on the "pro" page and a vote to remove it from each other page, "remove from all except 'pro' and 'proposal' would be a vote to keep it on each of those pages and to remove it from each of the others, and "remove from all" would be a vote to remove it from each page. That way each page will be decided by a majority vote. This would also allow for write-in votes if someone thinks some other combination would be better. :Also, since we have the "marriage rights" category now, which is a subcategory of civil rights, we should really be voting whether to keep that category and removing "civil rights" either way. The only reason I haven't already done so it because it would technically be a 3rr violation in this case. I think we should do whatever voting is necessary to replace "civil rights" with "marriage rights" in its categorization first, as I expect more people to be able to agree to that compromise. --whosawhatsis? 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC) ::Ok, per Lou's post and basic Robert's Rules, I'll remove the alternatives and I'll now set up the poll. It's Saturday, September 9th. Standard vote is 2 weeks, and I'll advertise it on the SiteNotice. Chadlupkes 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Poll :This is a test of the poll function. If there are problems with the vote, we will use the Confirmation below as "voter verified balloting". #Remove Category:Civil rights from Same-sex marriage and all sub articles. #Do not remove Category:Civil rights from any Same-sex marriage page. ICP:Res:SSMcat Choice 1 Choice 2 Vote ends September 23rd. You may change your vote until the end of the vote count. Confirmation of vote (4/11/1) :You MUST confirm your vote here or it will not count. Please sign in and post below. Just hitting the buttons above doesn't work, and we're using this section as "voter verified ballots", so to speak. *'Choice #2' - Chadlupkes. I'm tired of the distraction, and it doesn't affect my stance on the actual issue. :Changed to #2. Standing on principle is too important. *'Choice #1' --ШΔLÐSΣИ 00:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #1' --Vive42 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC) I voted for this. I'm in favor of gay rights but not in favor of forcing my views on others. *'Choice #2' - Remove it from Category:Civil rights. It should be in Category:Marriage rights instead. --whosawhatsis? 00:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :Changed to preserve the results of the original vote until disputes are resolved. --whosawhatsis? 04:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - Mabdallah 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC) voted for #2; not to remove. Funny thing is, I am against democracies. But here's my two cents. *'Choice #1' - Remove it. Lou franklin 04:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - If we bow to pressure from one individual with an axe to grind to let the category system be changed in such a way as to stop views he dislikes being seen we will be inundated with people trying it on. This policy is nothing more than sanctioning censorship and if it passes it will have a long-term negative effect on everythign we do here. It's a welcome mat for trolls and intolerant single-issue crusaders McLurker 14:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ::Very true, but I have proposed a subcategory of civil rights that it can be placed under that is even more accurate and should be acceptable to more people. In compliance with Campaigns Wikia:Category policy, adding the subcategory would also require removing the category from the article. --whosawhatsis? 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :::However, Lou franklin has stated that he believes marriage can only be between a man and woman. So if we change the category to marriage rights, we will have a similar debate all over again. McLurker 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC) ::::That may be true, but the title alone makes that category undeniably appropriate. Honestly, the only way I see the debates with Lou ever ending is if he gets himself banned, I just hope future debates are more substantive than this one. --whosawhatsis? 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC) *'Abstain' - What happened to the 4 choices above? Why are there now only the two extremes? I do not think that the extremes are the best possible option, but the other choices should at least be voted upon, instead of being cast aside merely to expedite the process. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 03:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :Having the additional choices was dependent on the approval of the person who made the motion. He said no. So we'll deal with it this way. Chadlupkes 04:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) ::Homosexual "marriage" either is a civil rights issue or it is not a civil rights issue. Lou franklin 12:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :::We are NOT voting on whether Same-sex Marriage is or is not a civil rights issue. If that was the vote, I'd be voting for choice #2. We are voting whether the Same-sex Marriage pages on Campaigns Wikia should have the Category:Civil rights. Chadlupkes 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' --Nkayesmith 08:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - It is unfortunate if language alienates some people from the discussion, but just about any choice of words could do so on an issue such as this, and I think that civil rights does accurately reflect a crucial perspective on what this issue is all about. singingwithin 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - as McLurker stated " This policy is nothing more than sanctioning censorship and if it passes it will have a long-term negative effect on everythign we do here." It is not ok to allow the Taliban to control framing to reflect their bias.--User:Demgal 22:44 11 September 2006 ::This user also has no talk page, no home page, and no contributions (other than this vote). Lou franklin 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - The discussion about whether same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue makes it a civil rights issue. User:janelle98 12:04, 12 September 2006 ::Interesting that this user has no home page, no talk page, and only one contribution: this vote. Lou franklin 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - I can't believe that there is actually a debate about this... In fact, the very existence of such a time-eating debate would seem to confirm that this is a civil rights issue. Just because one user is so caught up in his own version of reality and his own defintions of words should not be occupying so much time here. If he can't handle being part of this community with its pretty basic rules, then perhaps he needs to go elsewhere! User:Mickymse, 13 September 2006 ::This user also has no talk page, no home page, and no contributions (other than this vote). I smell a rat. Lou franklin 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :::Very suspicious. Maybe anonymous users and registered users with less than five edits (or less than two days of being an active user) shouldn't vote... --ШΔLÐSΣИ 11:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :I think restricting voting to active editors is an issue which should be discussed (on a separate page from this), but I would be hesitant to throw around allegations like that without more evidence. I should also point out that we have a link at the top of every page urging people to get involved in votes, so everyone who visits the site will be asked to vote, whether or not they have made any edits. This could be why we have people why haven't contributed before voting. Let's discuss the issue of whether or not we should allow non-editors to vote without throwing around allegations of sockpuppetry. McLurker 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ::Oh, and I am assuming almost everyone will agree that deciding on this policy retroactively (i.e. making the votes Lou Franklin has declared suspicious void) would not be an acceptable policy. McLurker 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :::I agree completely, McLurker. See my retraction above and my conversation with Chad. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ::::If so, then why is this page semi-protected? I'm unprotecting it for now, but if consensus calls for a reprotection, so be it. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - I know this silly issue creates more trouble for the admins than it's worth. But one of the keys to the soft fascism now running the USA is the power of confident voices staying relentlessly "on message" even when the message itself is senseless. If we're still trying to make politics less stupid, we can't let our agenda be set by people who play these games. Deadplanet 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #2' - Willisreed 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC) *'Choice #1' - I think the term "right" is a bit slanted because it has hidden connotation. I think it would have the same problem with the other side of the debate if it is categorized under "sin". -Y2Keynes 00:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :What is the hidden connotation of the term "right"? McLurker 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ::it's a undebatable "must-have" and no one can be denied from it. -Y2Keynes 21:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)